Re: scanning the openSUSE members

On 10/03/2015 08:03 PM, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Saturday 03 October 2015 08:56:20 Robert Schweikert wrote:
>>
>> I think this is a bit too simplistic. By casting a vote for the board
>> elections the voter has a certain influence on the direction of the
>> project, and we can argue about this as part of this discussion. Thus,
>> with a large number of inactive "openSUSE Members", per the member
>> definition, the problem arises is two fold.
> 
> Voting for the board does not influence the direction of the project as by our 
> guiding principles the board does not direct the project: "The board should 
> provide guidance and support existing governance structures, but shouldn't 
> direct or control development, since community mechanisms exist to accomplish 
> the goals of the project."

Fair enough, thus from your point of view the only thing that determines
the "direction of the project" is the technical aspect. That is
certainly a valid opinion. Personally I would claim that view to be a
bit too restrictive. From my perspective people that represent the
project in a booth at an event have just as much influence on the
direction of the project as those that decide to contribute a package to
a given distribution stream. Those that stand in a booth are to a large
degree "the face of the project" and help to stir interest in potential
new contributors. The list of things that have influence on the
direction of the project outside the technical area is probably quite
large. The events that get sponsored and receive booth boxes are
currently recommended to our primary sponsor by the board.

Anyway, we can stay with the "the project is only technical" argument,
which is probably the reason why we have such a hard time in convincing
more people in non technical areas to contribute, but that is my opinion
and not based on any data what so ever.


> 
>> b.) If everyone votes then one can argue that those that are generally
>> inactive have an undue influence over the direction of the project by
>> casting their vote.
> 
> Do you seriously think that this is a problem? Is there any evidence that 
> people who do nothing than voting change the outcome of votes in any way?
> 
> To me this sounds like a very theoretical argument.
> 
>> The problem does not necessarily need to be solved by culling the
>> membership list. Other approaches may be feasible.
> 
> Exactly. The other approach is to just let it be. It doesn't create real 
> problems and our energy is much better spent on taking care of the active 
> people and get things done in what we want to deliver to our users.

Well, how in the "let it be" model we are in a position to engage those
active members that choose not to vote? How do we differentiate those
from the inactive members? How do we have a constructive conversation
about why the members that do contribute do not choose to vote?

From my perspective this is part of "taking care of active members".

From a purely technical view "let it be" works perfectly well. When
someone chooses to no longer maintain a package then maybe someone else
will stand up and do the work. Whether the person that decided to drop
package maintenance is listed as an openSUSE Member is immaterial to the
technical aspect of the project, I agree with you. However, there are
other aspects to the project. As long as we refuse to acknowledge that
these other areas exist, need attention, and have their own sets of
problems that need to be solved we will be stuck in the same position
that we are in. Additionally I proclaim that the longer we try to solve
non technical problems with technical solutions we will continue to
shrink, no matter how good the distributions are.

> 
>> Anyway as Richard pointed out, a change in governance model needs a vote
>> by "openSUSE Members" which brings us back to the original problem. Of
>> course we can choose to change the governance model with the current
>> voting structure.
> 
> There is no change in our governance structure needed.
> 
> There is no quorum defined for board elections, so the number of inactive 
> voters doesn't change the results of the election in any way. 

But the there is a quorum defined for the membership to mandate changes
on the board. With a 25% vote of the membership early elections can be
initiated. When 76% of the membership, and I don't think the number is
that high yet, are inactive this option is taken away from those that do
actively contribute to the project.

Later,
Robert


-- 
Robert Schweikert                   MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
Public Cloud Architect                         LINUX
rjschwei-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org
IRC: robjo